The American lawbreaker who became a viral internet sensation as the “hot convict” because of his visually arresting mugshot won’t get a chance to show England he’s become a model citizen.

Jeremy Meeks, 33, now a fashion model who had traveled to London for a photo shoot, was deported Monday night from Heathrow Airport because of his previous criminal record, according to the Daily Mail.

“I’ve been denied,” Meeks said as he walked through the airport, according to “Inside Edition.” “London don’t want me here. I done served my time. S*** is crazy. Don’t make no sense.”

Meeks, became known as the “hot convict” in June 2014 after the Stockton Police Department in California arrested him on weapons and gang charges, and his mugshot went viral. He spent two years behind bars, and was freed in March 2016.

Meeks’ manager, Joe Jordan, said his client’s paperwork to enter the U.K. was in order. Meeks also had a letter from his parole officer giving him permission to travel, according to the New York Daily News.

None of that held any sway with U.K. immigration officials, who escorted him onto a plane eight hours after he landed in London.

Jordan told the Daily Mail he hopes Meeks’ visa problem is temporary.

“He was on the right track for what we feel was going to be his new life. Now he’s very sad,” Jordan said. “Hopefully this is just a setback and he will be able to come back from this.”

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

NEW YORK Constance McMillen finally got to wear a tuxedo to the ball. It wasn't her high school prom in Fulton, Miss., as she'd originally hoped. No, she had been banned from wearing a suit to that. Instead, McMillen, 18, wore a custom-made Isaac Mizrahi tuxedo to Carnegie Hall, where she was ho...

Now that news of the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton has been unleashed for public consumption, let the delirious obsessing, the breathless speculating and the earnest navel-gazing begin. We know Prince William proposed using his mother's 18-carat sapphire-and-diamond engagement r...

The move undoubtedly raises eyebrows about the motives of G-III, Trump’s licensing company. Brands like Ivanka Trump oftentimes don’t like to be associated with lower-tier retailers like Stein Mart, so both BoF and The Cut questioned whether the move was made to disassociate Trump’s name from the retailer. But Trump’s designs sell at other off-price stores like T.J. Maxx, so that doesn’t totally add up.

Trump’s brand saw an increase in sales in 2016 and a huge spike following the controversial “free commercial” Kellyanne Conway gave the brand on television in February 2017, when she encouraged Americans to buy Ivanka Trump’s brand.

But another theory could be that unlike higher-end stores like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus, which dropped the brand altogether, the move was a way for Stein Mart to distance itself from the brand without having to actually distance itself from its clothing.

In a statement sent to The Huffington Post, G-III revealed that it worked on its own accord to change the labels ― a move that is weird, but technically legal, and, according to BoF, “commonplace”” for some brands.

“G-IIII accepts responsibility for resolving this issue, which occurred without the knowledge or consent of the Ivanka Trump organization,” the statement said. “G-III has already begun to take corrective actions, including facilitating the immediate removal of any mistakenly labeled merchandise from its customer. The Ivanka Trump brand continues to grow and remains very strong.”

A request for comment from both Authentic Brands Group (which licenses Adrienne Vittadini) and Stein Mart were not immediately returned. But as Susan Scafidi, professor of fashion law at Fordham Law School and founder of the Fashion Law Institute, pointed out to BoF, if Adrienne Vittadini was not aware of the label swapping, there could be a bigger issue at hand.

“If the original label is replaced with that of a third party unaware of the substitution, the responsible party would be liable to the third party,” she said.

It might be time to check the labels on your most recent Stein Mart purchases, people.